United States v. Christopher Long


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Pasco M. Bowman and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4364576-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Ms. Ann M. Koszuth.; Denying appellant's pending motions, [4371760-2] [4371760-3] [4374019-4] [4374019-3] [4408426] [16-1005]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1005 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Christopher S. Long lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin ____________ Submitted: June 2, 2016 Filed: June 7, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Christopher Long appeals after he pleaded guilty to a felon-in-possession charge and the District Court1 imposed a sentence of ninety-six months in prison and 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. Appellate Case: 16-1005 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Entry ID: 4408426 three years of supervised release, varying downward from the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range. Long’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel raises two issues: whether Long’s prior conviction under Missouri Revised Statutes section 571.030.1(4) was a “crime of violence” for purposes of calculating his offense level under Guidelines § 2K2.1(a)(2) and whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable. In a pro se supplemental brief, Long joins counsel in challenging the designation of his prior conviction as a crime of violence and also requests priorcustody credit. We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that the court did not err in determining that the section 571.030.1(4) offense was a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)(1) (defining “crime of violence”); United States v. Pulliam, 566 F.3d 784, 788 (8th Cir.) (holding that § 571.030.1(4) “meets the statutory definition of violent felony in [18 U.S.C.] § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), because it involves the ‘use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another’”), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1035 (2009); United States v. Vincent, 575 F.3d 820, 826 (8th Cir. 2009) (“The statutory definition of ‘violent felony’ is viewed as interchangeable with the guidelines definition of ‘crime of violence.’” (citations to quoted cases omitted)), cert. denied, 560 U.S. 927 (2010). We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to vary downward any more than it did. See United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733–34 (8th Cir. 2009). Finally, Long must raise any issue of prior-custody credit with the Bureau of Prisons. See United States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d 1340, 1344 (8th Cir.1996). We have reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we deny Long’s pending motions. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 16-1005 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2016 Entry ID: 4408426

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?